Right Wing Hypocrisy #101: Immigration and Laissez-Faire

Right Wing Hypocrisy #101: Immigration and Laissez-Faire
Rant #15(Opinion)


Originally March 1, 2020; Posted March 20, 2020

While conservatism has many strains and sub-strains, a common right wing standpoint goes something like this: the market will decide for itself the best things for a society, and regulations only hinder the arrival at equilibrium, which ultimately suits us all best. Free markets and only free markets make our country free, taxes are bad, businesses can do what they want and it will in the end benefit workers as well when they are allowed to operate this way (providing more benefits than government-run programs which require higher taxes ever could).

Another extremely common conservative stance, having only gained credence with the election of Donald Trump: we need strong borders. This is America, everything inside of it belongs to Americans; other people from other places come here and take jobs away from hardworking Americans, leach off of our country by using up tax dollars through government programs, and 99% of them do nothing of net benefit in return.  

I write this today to tell you that those two views are completely incompatible.

Of course, those two ways of stating the issues kind of exaggerate the real center of gravity for most Republicans these days, and yet they unironically reflect where a lot of the country stands. Here's the issue: borders might in fact be THE most hindering government 'regulation' (other than maybe taxes) in the world. By restricting the influx (or outpouring) of people, the economy fails to accept qualified laborers. Think about it: there could be an Einstein-level genius living in Zimbabwe who would be discovering 100% clean fuel or something, but instead he/she is stuck struggling for basic necessities because of that country's poor economy. Inventing new machines isn't on the table when food isn't either. Meanwhile, the United States approaches full employment--already, employers are struggling to find the workers to fill positions in their companies. The solution? Immigration!

In fact, one developmental economist says that strict borders lead to a loss of $78 trillion a year. Yes, trillion with a T. To put that into perspective, the US economy today in its entirety is worth less than $20 trillion. Economist Michael Clemens believes it could double the volume of global trade, leading to increased wealth across the planet.

Also, to quickly dispel a huge misconception: the economy isn't a set, fixed volume. It's not like there are 200 million jobs in America and 200 million only, and if new people come to this country, there won't be enough for native-born Americans. If that were true, how would teens and young adults find a job? Only when an old person dies? No. More people introduced into the economy who work means more people getting paychecks, paying taxes, and spending that money. So say 100 immigrants come to town and get jobs and then buy cars. Now the local car dealership can hire a new salesman because they're moving more cars. That is a simplistic example there but still, it illustrates the basics of how that works. If you say "they're taking our jobs," you're wrong. All they're taking is the scapegoating spotlight away from certain politicians who want someone to blame rather than less visible forces like automation or their own poor policies.

If somebody can travel freely between the states of Pennsylvania and Maryland, and can work in one state and live in the other, and buy things from either, does this relationship really take away from one or give another or its people an unfair advantage? Not really. If a person from Zimbabwe came to the US for work and was able to send some of their wages back to their homeland, allowing their family to spend that money, then that injects dollars into that local economy that otherwise would not reach it. With more money being spent there, it means that more jobs may be added to that country's economy, and some of that money could make it back to the US, or make it back to the US--after it goes through Brazil, then Germany, then Japan, etc. An economy only exists when people spend money. Borders restrict the permeability of that capital, meaning that its abilitty to come back to many points is also potentially restricted. 

Globalization has allowed the 'winners' in various countries to win much bigger while isolating some, and so theoretically it would become the responsibility of governments (more so than today) to devise ways to make sure wealth distribution does not grow to a point of excessive inequality (more than it already has). Yet globalism itself has led to hundreds of millions of people (most recently in China) being hoisted out of squalid poverty over the last century. And even though Chinese manufacturing may have led to the loss of American jobs in that sector, the cheaper goods now made in China frees up capital for consumers here, allowing them to spend it elsewhere and stimulate that business as well. Actually, the whole alarmist line of "America has a trade deficit" has an upside: it is a sign of an advanced economy: one that is based more in services than agriculture of manufacturing goods.

When jobs are lost due to changes (like globalization or new technology), economists call this 'creative destruction.' For example, when cars were invented, many feared that it was the death knell to the horse breeding industry, not to mention horseshoe makers. And it largely was. Yet automobile manufacturing created tens of thousands of jobs. It increased demand for steel and oil, for better, paved roads, and it allowed for the rapid transportation of goods, increasing trade. In the end, cars led to an immense expansion of economic activity, albeit causing horse breeding to decrease and a few odd industries to disappear. Thus their destruction (or diminishment) allowed for the creation of new jobs and capital. The effects of globalization is a little more nuanced, and it may be too early to tell the extent of its benefits, although the damage has shown itself: namely, the exodus of unskilled manfuacturing jobs from the United States. That though has less to do directly with the prospect of open borders for the purposes of stimulating trade.

Anyway, if you have a basic understanding of economics, you might still think 'wait a sec, if we are almost at full employment, and employers start to struggle to find workers, wouldn't that mean that wages start to rise without any new workers? If immigrants come, then they might take the job for lower pay, meaning wages stagnate. Right?' The answer is: not necessarily, for a few reasons. But what do those reasons matter? If you're an unabashed free market libertarian fiscal conservative person, then that isn't the concern of policymakers, right?

With all of this in mind, it makes the Republican Party's embrace of anti-immigrant, anti-globalization rhetoric seem less about economic prosperity and more about xenophobia, possibly racism. Or maybe it makes the anti-immigrant rhetoric seem anti-better economy. 

Essentially, you can either believe in that laissez-faire proponent, or you can favor protectionism and tough immigration policy. But you can't be both. Well, you can be whatever you want: just not ideologically pure by holding those simultaneous and contrasting viewpoints.



Works Cited:


-WBUR.com, economist Michael Clemens on open borders' benefits.
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/08/06/open-borders-economy-workers